Stryker Hip Lawsuit Help: 1-800-272-0491

The models that were recalled were Stryker Rejuvenate and Stryker ABG II as these had the same type of modular neck hip stem.

There are other manufacturers such as Depuy and Zimmer that have also recalled hip replacements.

The Michigan based Stryker has made over $8 billion in sales, of which 13% was contributed by the hip implants before the Stryker Hip Recall was issued.

What Went Wrong with Stryker Hip Implants?

Stryker warned doctors about the potential risks associated with use of their hip implants two months before the official Stryker Hip Recall. This was in an attempt to downplay the initial fear factor that would arise when the recall was made.

The problem associated with these hip implants is that the stem runs deeper into the femur bone of the leg and has a tendency to corrode.

The Stryker models have displayed a high failure rate within a short period of time and there are speculations that there are very serious issues associated with the hip implants that were recalled.

This recall of the hip implants by Stryker has triggered fears from the patients who are recipients of Rejuvenate and ABG II devices and those that were negatively affected by the implant have filed Stryker lawsuits to potentially receive compensation for their suffering.

We can be of assistance if you think you may be eligible to join a Stryker Class Action Lawsuit. We offer a free case evaluation, and do not charge a fee unless you collect a fair settlement.

Reasons Behind the Stryker Hip Recall:

Stryker discovered that there were numerous problems associated with its two implants years before they took the initiative to announce the Stryker Hip Recall of the highly dangerous hip stems.

Even though the design was very different from the traditional hip implants, the company performed only a few laboratory tests before marketing it to the public.

While the traditional hip implants had two parts such as femoral stem with a ball and cup, the Rejuvenate and ABG II implants had 4 parts such as femoral stem, tabular cup, metal neck and a ball.

Problematic Design of the Hip Implants:

The concept behind such a design was to allow the surgeon to choose the required length and angle for the individual as the implants had 4 parts. The problem with the new design was that it was metal on metal while the traditional devices were made of fiber and plastic.

Therefore, whenever the metal brushes with its metal joint, it results in fretting and corrosion. As the friction increases between the joints, the metal on metal hip implants release great levels of chromium and cobalt ions into the bloodstream, which can lead to metal poisoning, called metallosis.

Find Out if you Qualify for a Stryker Hip Lawsuit

Before the Stryker Hip Recall, were you or a family member implanted with the Rejuvenate or ABG II hip device?

If the answer is yes, and you have experienced one or more of the following side effects, you may have an excellent case against Stryker.

Fretting

Corrosion

Hip dislocation

Metal poisoning

Intense pain in the hip joints

Crackling

Popping in the metal joints

You may be eligible to receive remuneration for all the pain and suffering you have undergone, or for the invasive hip revision surgeries that you would never had needed the device had not been faulty.

A discovery phase is the very beginning of the pretrial procedures, in which all parties are exchanging relevant information and documents.

Both the plaintiffs and the defendant share information with each other that will help them build their own cases. For example, the defendant, in this case Stryker, will want to know about any possible witnesses the plaintiffs will call to stand.

If one party objects to sharing a certain piece of information during the discovery phase, the opposing party can file a motion in court to try and compel it.

The discovery phase is the very first part of the pretrial litigation.

Stryker Hip Lawsuit Bellwether Trials are Coming Soon

After the discovery phase, the next step is for the court to hear the bellwether trials.

Bellwether trials happen when the court selects a few claims to be heard in court which act as representatives for the thousands of other very similar claims.

For example, if the court hears 10 Stryker bellwether trials, and each one of them moves for a Stryker settlement, the court and the defendant can assume that a settlement will be necessary for all the Stryker claims.

Thus, the courts and legal counsel do not have to litigate thousands of claims because the bellwether trials represent the group as a whole.

The bellwether trials for the Stryker lawsuit are scheduled to be heard in spring and summer of 2015.

Why You Need to File Your Stryker Hip Lawsuit Right Away

If you have received a faulty Stryker hip implant, or other metal on metal hip implant the time to act is now. The lawsuits are underway.

Yes, Stryker is offering compensation for the surgery to removed or correct the hip implant, but they are not offering compensation for your pain and suffering. That is where a Stryker lawsuit comes in.

Additionally, there is a statute of limitations on the Stryker lawsuit. The statute of limitation varies state per state, but may be as short as 1 year after you received your hip implant.

A Stryker lawsuit will pause the statute of limitations, giving you some time to sort it all out.

Getting reimbursement from Stryker itself does not stop the statute of limitations, and can lead to you missing out on your rightful Stryker settlement.

At Consumer Claims Center of America we work with the major lawyers on the case. We offer a free claims consultation, and you will not incur any legal fees unless you collect a fair and just Stryker settlement.

You have nothing to lose and much to gain, so start your Stryker claim today by filling out the online claims form on this page, or calling the number below to speak with a live representative.

Developments in Hip Replacement Lawsuits

The DePuy settlements are going to finish paying out by the end of the month.

The Stryker lawsuit and the DePuy lawsuit are ongoing, but some major settlements have been reached.

A report released by on August 7th indicates that the DePuy ASR lawsuit is beginning to come to a close after a $2.5 billion settlement is now paying out to claimants in the DePuy lawsuit.

DePuy Orthopedics, a division of Johnson and Johnson, recalled its ASR metal on metal hip replacements because they were faulty by design.

The metal on metal construction eventually lead to corrosion, metal poisoning (metallosis), and other painful problems.

Many who had the DePuy ASR hip replacement system had to have it surgically removed, resulting in risky surgery and months of painful rehabilitation.

DePuy Orthopedics Settles Majority of Claims

As of August 31st, 2014, Johnson and Johnson is scheduled to have completed payment of the landmark metal on metal hip replacement settlement.

Johnson and Johnson owns DePuy Orthopedics, a company that has been under fire because of their faulty and dangerous metal on metal hip replacements. Over ten thousand plaintiffs sued DePuy after having to have the dangerous and poorly designed hip implants removed,

In November of last year (2013) Johnson and Johnson agreed to a landmark settlement, paying out approximately $2.5 billion to affected claimants who had the recalled DePuy metal on metal hip replacement systems implanted, and subsequently removed.

Each eligible claimant has been awarded a base DePuy settlement of $250,000, to be adjusted for more or less depending on the circumstances of each individual case.

This settlement is being paid out to victims who had either the DePuy ASR™ XL Acetabular Hip System, or the DePuy ASR Hip Resurfacing System implanted ands had to have them surgically removed.

The settlement covers people who had their metal on metal hip implants removed prior to August 31, 2013.

The DePuy lawsuit is still open for claimants who had their DePuy ASR hip systems removed after August 2013, or have not yet undergone the surgery.

The DePuy ASR Hips were recalled in 2010 after a high incidence of failure, resulting in injuries and corrective surgery.

Since the DePuy settlement is being paid out, the hip replacement litigation will now focus on the Stryker Lawsuit.

Johnson and Johnson knew the ASR Hip Replacement would Fail: Used it Anyway

At first, Johnson and Johnson denied the allegations. But, as documents were released during the DePuy lawsuit, it was uncovered that DePuy had conducted an internal study that revealed that up to 40% of the hip implants would fail within the first few years.

Hip implants are supposed to last 10-20 years before requiring revision.

It is estimated that about 31,000 people had a defective DePuy Hip implanted.

If Johnson and Johnson was correct, and 40% of them would fail in the first few years, that means that approximately 12,400 people would experience the excruciating pain and serious medical danger of a failed hip replacement.

Stryker Hip Lawsuits and Others Still Fighting in Court

As the $2.5 billion settlement from Johnson and Johnson’s DePuy Orthopedics is finally being paid out in full, courts are now focusing on the Stryker metal on metal hip replacement lawsuit and others.

Other metal on metal hip replacements that are currently, or expected to attract injury lawsuits include:

DePuy Pinnacle

Biomet M2a 38

Biomet M2a Magnum

Stryker ABG II

Stryker Rejuvenate

Accolade Femoral Stem Hips

Wright Conserve Hip Systems

Profemur Z Stem Hips Systems

If you have been hurt by these defective products, you may be eligible for a claim in the metal on metal hip replacement lawsuit. Contact us immediately to begin your Stryker lawsuit today, as the litigation is currently in process and settlements are expected to pay out soon.

What is the Stryker Multidistrict Litigation?

Forming a multidistrict litigation, abbreviated as an MDL is an organizational method the judicial system uses in large cases such as the Stryker lawsuit.

As is, the Stryker lawsuit consists of thousands of claimants (also called plaintiffs) that live all over the United States, in multiple court districts.

Since these plaintiffs all have very similar complaints (they received a faulty hip replacement that resulted in personal injury), they can combine their claims in the Stryker MDL to save both time and resources.

The Stryker MDL will save the plaintiffs, the defendant, and the court system resources by cutting litigation costs, and centralizing the Stryker lawsuit into one court room.

When a large number of people are hurt by a defective product and an MDL is formed, the individual claims are transferred to a federal court that has been selected to hear the case.

Presiding over this federal, or District court is a District Judge.

Judge Donovan W. Frank has been appointed to the Stryker MDL.

The Stryker MDL has been scheduled to be carried out in the District of Minnesota.

The Stryker MDL Process: What Happens in an MDL

When there are lots and lots of very similar personal injury claims, these claims are often consolidated into an MDL. Each individual claim is transferred from it’s original district and court to the federal court that has been selected to handle the MDL.

MDLs are in charge of pretrial proceedings only.

Often, cases such as the Stryker lawsuit are settled in the pretrial stages and do not need to move on to trial litigation.

The judge of the Stryker MDL must determine if the claim is valid. Frivolous claims will be dismissed at this stage in the process.

When the decision to form the Stryker MDL was made, hundreds of Stryker lawsuits were transferred to the District of Minnesota. These cases will go through the pretrial proceedings in the District of Minnesota, and will likely be settled in the Stryker MDL, rather moving on to trial.

One of the first things that happens in an MDL is the judge will select a Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee, or PSC.

The Stryker PSC is a group of attorneys appointed to represent the needs of the plaintiffs. This group of lawyers fight for the rights of all the claimants involved in the Stryker lawsuit. The Stryker PSC was appointed in November of 2013.

After the PSC is appointed, the discovery phase will begin.

The discovery phase is where all parties involved exchange pertinent information and documentation. For example, if a witness is going to be called to the stand, all parties will be informed that the witness will be called so they can prepare to examine them.

After the discovery phase, bellwether trials are heard by the court to determine if the claims merit a settlement, or compensation for damages and losses.

In an MDL a handful of cases (5-10 or so) are selected to be heard in the court as a representative sample. These are called the bellwether trials. These cases are similar enough to represent the large body of plaintiffs making Stryker claims.

The verdicts from the bellwether trials can be used for the court and defendant (Stryker) to determine if they should settle.

Settling at this stage could save Stryker money, and also get the compensation to the plaintiffs sooner. If Stryker sees that there is little chance that they could win the lawsuit by fighting it in court, they will offer a settlement ($$$) in the Stryker MDL, during the pretrial stages.

This will save all parties involved time, effort, and legal fees. It would get the Stryker claimants the money they deserve faster, so they can concentrate on healing.

Often, the defendant (Stryker) will offer a settlement during an MDL. If the plaintiff (the injured party) is not happy with the settlement offered, they have a right to reject it.

If a plaintiff rejects a Stryker settlement offer, the case will be transferred out of the MDL back to the original court district the complaint was filed in.

After the case has been transferred to it’s original court district the plaintiff’s Stryker Lawyer can take it to court and litigate, or fight for a higher settlement amount.

So, in summary, the Stryker MDL consolidates the cases to be heard in one federal courtroom, by one judge. The judge hearing the case appoints a Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee, or PSC to represent the plaintiffs. The court then proceeds in the discovery phase and the bellwether trials.

At this point Stryker will likely offer a settlement, which individual plaintiffs can chose to either accept or reject. If the plaintiffs accept the settlement, they will be paid in full by a specified date.

If a plaintiff rejects the settlement, it is their right to take the Stryker lawsuit to court, and the claim will be transferred back to its original district for litigation.

Stryker Knee Replacement Recall

According to the FDA, getting knee replacement surgery with Stryker’s products might prove to be lethal for some.

After serious complications have been developed in some patients, the company has decided to recall its knee replacement products immediately.

Yet again, Stryker has failed to do thorough research on their products before releasing them on the market, placing their consumers in danger.

Many people have already had these faulty products installed into their body, and sadly these people are suffering because of it.

Recovery could mean new surgieries, more painful rehabilitation periods, and other medical procedures such as MRIs, follow up exams and more.

Stryker Knee Replacement After-Market Recall

After being touted as a breakthrough for knee replacement patients, the use of Stryker products has proven to be more harmful than beneficial in many ways.

It has been observed that numerous problems have been developed gradually in those who have undergone the Stryker knee replacement surgery already.

Understanding the urgency of the problem, Stryker has issued guidelines to all surgeons and hospitals to not to use the products anymore.

Unfortunately, the Stryker knee replacement products were not the only Stryker products recalled. There is also a large number of claimants suing in the Stryker lawsuit for defective hip replacement products as well. Click here to learn more about the Stryker hip replacement lawsuits.

The healthcare industry is taking advantage of the incredible advancements in medical technology.

The Stryker knee replacement was once thought to be an innovation of the field, but defects in the Stryker knee replacement products have resulted in after-market recalls.

If the company had done a better job at testing their knee replacement products before releasing them to the public, perhaps the harm this product has inflicted would have been avoided.

The knee replacement process involves cutting of the bone to fit the artificial knee. However, Stryker had to recall their ShapeMatch Cutting Guide, a tool that the surgeons used before surgery.

The ShapeMatch Cutting Guide is a tool that helped surgeons place the knee replacement during surgery, telling them where to cut and where to put the knee replacement.

This product was recalled in November of 2012 because the guide had a defect that resulted in wider cuts than the surgeon had planned out for the procedure. This can result in the knee implants becoming loose or out of place and cause debilitating pain.

Surgeons are now having to contact their patients and explain they have installed a defective knee replacement, and furthermore that this may require corrective surgery and additional rehabilitation.

Once considered the best available option for knee replacement candidates, the recall of Stryker knee replacement products is shocking news to the medical community and patients alike.

Surgeons and patients were unaware that the Stryker knee replacement could potentially put recipients in harms way, and even risk their life.

Why File a Stryker Lawsuit

Patients who have undergone Stryker knee replacement surgery might be at serious risk of losing their life because of the many problems that can occur with the Stryker products themselves, as well as the risks posed by additional knee replacement surgery.

Those who have went through this process, or are currently in the process of correcting the problem may be eligible for a Stryker lawsuit. If a Stryker lawsuit is successful, families may get compensation for their medical bills, pain and suffering, lost wages and more.

Knee replacement surgeries for athletes and others have become more and more common due to the advancement in modern medical technologies.

However, defective products prematurely sold on the market such as the recalled Stryker Knee Replacement products are incredible setbacks for individuals, families, and the entire healthcare system.

No one expected the lauded product to be recalled, and the fact that people with knee problems now have a defective and dangerous product in their bodies is a very serious problem.

Some patients have developed serious complications after the surgery, even though the knee replacement surgery itself went well.

More on the Stryker Knee Recall

The knee replacements are failing and sometimes loosening post-operation. This results in debilitating pain, inflammation, and sometimes bone and tissue damage.

The following Stryker knee replacement products have been recalled:

Scorpio CR and PS components

Duracon Total Knee

Unicompartmental Knee System

ShapeMatch Cutting Guides (a tool used by surgeons to determine where cuts in the bone should be made for the knee replacement; this system was used with the Stryker Triathlon Total Knee System)

It all began with serious side effects cropping up in those who have already undergone the surgery, such as those mentioned above. These products are supposed to help patients and not harm, but it has turned out to be that much of the time these products cause serious problems.

The Stryker knee replacement recalls came too late for many who had already undergone dangerous surgery using these products.

The Stryker Knee Replacement is a Class 1 Recall

This means that the FDA considers the use of these products likely to cause severe adverse health problems, or even death. It is the most serious of the recall classifications.

The best option for those considering knee replacement surgery is not to use these products at all, because they post a serious and potentially fatal health risk.

A Stryker Knee Recall Is The Right Move but Too Late for Some

The Stryker knee replacement product recalls happened only after surgeons started using Stryker knee replacement products with their patients nationwide.

One wonders how such products passed the stringent medical testing process required before the product is marketed to the public. Part of the Stryker lawsuit claim is that Stryker failed in their responsibility to ensure that these products were safe for medical use.

Considering the fact that these products have already been marketed and used extensively across the nation, it will be a huge setback medically, emotionally, and financially for the people injured by these products.

Your health and recovery is our first concern. Getting better will take a lot of time, money and effort. We can help you recover your financial losses with experienced Stryker attorneys.

We offer a free case evaluation. We do not charge a fee unless you collect your rightful settlement.

Update on the Stryker Hip Recall Lawsuit

This hip recall was classified as a Class II recall by US FDA. This means that the health consequences caused by these devices are temporary or medically reversible and the probability of these causing serious adverse health concerns is remote.

After the Stryker Hip Recall, the company volunteered to reimburse the costs related to this recall that were incurred by the recipients.

A Law Firm Can Handle Your Stryker Hip Recall Lawsuit

Since the hip recall, there have been many lawsuits filed across the country over the Stryker hip replacement devices and the number has been increasing significantly.

The recipients who have filed these lawsuits are demanding compensation for suffering due to pain, lost wages, past, present and future unforeseen medical expenses and other claims.

The Stryker Multicounty Litigation (MCL) has been proceeding in New Jersey since January 2013.

As of September, there were 382 plaintiffs in the MCL court in the Stryker hip recall lawsuit cases. It is important to note that in January 2013, there were only 10 participating plaintiffs. The figure increased to 306 in August 2013 and to 382 by September.

In June 2013, the U.S Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, also called as JPML, unified all Stryker hip recall lawsuits at the federal level to form a MDL or multidistrict litigation in Minnesota. The number of plaintiffs in the MDL is also increasing rapidly.

As of August 2013, there were 198 cases whereas now in October 2013, there are 290 plaintiffs, showing that there has been a 46.5 percent increase. These consolidations to form the MCL and MDL have happened in both New Jersey and Minnesota respectively to increase the efficiency of the pretrial proceedings in both the courts.

Stryker Orthopaedic’s Reponse to the Stryker Hip Recall Lawsuits

Due to the staggering increase in lawsuits being filed against it, the Stryker Corp. has partnered with a third party claims administrator to work directly with the recipients. The third party administrator is expected to manage all the claims related to the hip recall.

As with all other claims procedures, there are a number of finer points that will require thorough study, under the microscope so to speak.

Potential claimants should first contact our Stryker Hip Recall Lawsuit attorneys before they get in touch with the representatives of the Stryker hip recall claims program.

They work for Stryker; we work for you.

It has become very evident that the number of people who have been affected by these hip devices is large. The number of lawsuits being filed nationwide is a reminder that the impact of the Stryker hip recall has spread across the country and not specific to a single region or state.

Contact Us For A Free Stryker Hip Recall Claim Review

If you have been fitted with one of these defective hip devices and suffered complications, you may be eligible for compensation.

In the case that you’ve been affected, you should contact the experienced trial litigation attorneys for a free Stryker Hip Recall Lawsuit case review. Our attorneys have experience litigating against big corporations for big settlements. Help may be just a phone call away. Contact us now!

1-800-272-0491

Stryker Rejuvenate Recall Litigation in State and Federal Courts

Stryker Orthopaedics has ceased to recruit subjects for its longitudinal study on one of its two recently recalled hip implant models, but it has continued to try to resolve lawsuits filed by the ailing patients of both hip replacement stems.

Meanwhile, a major orthopedic medical journal has published a study that confirmed the corrosive potential of such devices.

The New Jersey-based medical technology corporation Stryker, voluntarily recalled its Stryker Rejuvenate and ABG II modular-neck hip stems and announced July 6, 2012, that it had “terminated global distribution of these products” based on data derived from “continued post-market surveillance.

These were not all-metal devices. Nevertheless, the necks, for instance, were made of a “cobalt chrome alloy,” according to Stryker’s answer to lawsuits filed in state court in New Jersey. The metal parts posed certain adverse-reaction risks including metal poisoning.

Ultimately, as New Jersey’s multi-county litigation center quoted the manufacturer, “These risks include the potential for fretting and/or corrosion at or about the modular-neck junction, which may result in adverse local tissue reactions manifesting with pain and/or swelling. … Possible adverse outcomes allegedly include metallosis, necrosis and osteolysis.”

Study Published on Complications of Affected Stryker Hip Recipients

The May 2013 edition of The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery published research in accordance with the reported damage that plaintiffs in Stryker class action lawsuits have suffered.

“Corrosion at the modular neck-body junction in dual-tapered stems with a modular cobalt-chromium-alloy femoral neck can lead to release of metal ions and debris resulting in local soft-tissue destruction,” concluded researchers from Northwestern University and Indiana University medical schools and from Rush University Medical Center.

They evaluated the case studies on 12 new hips at multiple medical centers. “Adverse local tissue reaction should be considered as a potential cause for new-onset pain in patients with these components, and early revision should be considered given the potentially destructive nature of these reactions.

Some of the adverse-event reports were serious enough that Stryker stated in its patient follow-up guidance, “Stryker is suggesting that surgeons consider performing a clinical examination, such as blood work and cross sectional imaging, on all patients who received a Rejuvenate or ABG II modular-neck hip stem regardless of whether a patient is experiencing pain and/or swelling.”

Continuing to observe the performance of the Rejuvenate model, Stryker has been sponsoring a clinical trial since November 2010, for which data was scheduled to be collected through November 2022. Trial researchers reported April 12 that the study had ceased recruiting subjects. The Stryker Rejuvenate patients “will be evaluated for freedom of hip revision at 5 years and clinical outcomes for up to 10 years after surgery,” according to a summary of the study made available by the U.S. National Institute of Health.

Many patients, especially those who have been injured by the Stryker Rejuvenate Recall, have turned to their surgeons for help, an option Stryker has been recommending.

Stryker Orthopaedics on the Defense

Stryker has been defending itself from hip replacement failure litigation filed at the state and federal levels. The door is still open for injured patients to follow suit. Stryker has been financially equipping for the formidable challenge following the Stryker Rejuvenate Recall.

Referring to the cost of dealing with product liability lawsuits on one hand and reimbursements for patient testing, treatment and revision surgeries on the other, Stryker estimated that “the probable loss to resolve this matter [would] be in the range of approximately $190 million to $390 million, before third-party insurance recoveries,” according to Stryker’s recently released annual report for 2012.

Claimants’ causes of action include negligence, defects in design and in manufacture, and the failure to warn of increased risks of serious complications. Some lawsuits have sought compensation for impairment of marital relations that hip replacement injury and surgical revision have caused.

Multi-county state-court litigation has been centralized in New Jersey, the home state of Stryker Orthopaedics, before Judge Brian R. Martinotti in Bergen County. The next status conference has been scheduled for June 18.

Meanwhile, federal multidistrict litigation was designated for oral arguments at a May 30th hearing in Louisville, Kentucky, where two plaintiffs motioned for the consolidation of certain actions to federal district court in Minnesota and to federal district court for the Northern District of Illinois.

We Can Help with Your Stryker Lawsuit

Anyone who has suffered tissue damage and related injuries that may be traced to the Stryker Rejuvenate Recall or ABG II may be entitled to compensation for their suffering.

One way to determine your legal options, without charge, is to seek a free consultation from the experienced trial litigation attorneys we work with here at Consumer Claims Center of America.

Complete our Free Case Review Form located in the right side bar or call 1-800-272-0491 to speak with a claims representative today.

Do not become a victim of the Stryker Rejuvenate Recall, exercise your legal rights now!

Are You Eligible to Join a Stryker Class Action Lawsuit?

Stryker Orthopedics have been in the news as of late having recalled components of metal hip replacements, confirming the claim that metal-on-metal hip replacements are innately faulty and dangerous.

The ABG II and Rejuvenate modular neck stems have been pulled from the market.

These hip implants had metal-on-metalo, which corroded over time causing a slew of problems to the recipient.

The result is swelling and pain due to inflammation on the tissues surrounding it, metal poisoning and more.

The recall of the Stryker Modular neck stems by doctors is too late for those who have already received the implant. They were marketed as ideal for younger patients since the artificial components were meant to offer better motion range and hip implants that last for a long time.

The metal on metal hips have caused more harm than good, and the side effects they cause have lead to victims filing a Stryker Class Action Lawsuit.

If you have been implanted with a Stryker hip device of this nature, you may be eligible to join the Stryker class action lawsuit intended to offset medical bills and other losses related to your injury.

The attorneys we work with are investigating the claims surrounding the different devices of metal-on-metal implants, such as the ABG II and Rejuvenate. To determine if you qualify to file a lawsuit, complete the form to the right on this page, or call:

1-800-272-0491

Problems with Stryker Metal-on-Metal Devices

You might be wondering what the problem is with these Stryker products. They have metal necks located within metal stems, risking metal poisoning (metallosis) and damage to bodily tissues of the recipients.

Due to potential friction and metal corrosion taking place between the stem and the neck piece, the device can make small metal pieces spread out into the local area, and into the bloodstream causing the most severe inflammatory responses across the entire body. The result is damaged soft tissue and muscles while compromising revision surgery.

In fact, it has been found that a minimum of 45 patients with the Stryker implants of ABG II and Rejuvenate modular neck stems have serious tissue swelling and reported pain, thus the Stryker class action lawsuit has begun.

The Stryker hips are designed differently from other implants of metal-on-metal, involving a socket and a metal ball.The devices are linked to hip-replacement failure, loosening, metal poisoning, and other complications. The corrosion of the metal implant can lead to excessive cobalt levels in the blood which causes thyroid, nerve and heart problems.

More than one Stryker class action lawsuit has been reported after more evidence on hip implants has shown a lot of side effects as compared to implants made from plastic or ceramic. It is something that led Stryker to recall the implants, meaning litigation will increase from those patients claiming the hip implants have injured them one way or the other.

If you have suffered from the ABG II or the Stryker Rejuvenate implants, you may be eligible to participate in a Stryker class action lawsuit to recover some compensation from the manufacturer for suffering, pain, medical bills and other losses. You can start the process by completing a free case review form (to the right on this page) to find out if you may be eligible to receive compensation. To speak with a legal representative directly, call: